tv Public Affairs CSPAN July 10, 2013 5:00pm-8:01pm EDT
that our asset purchase programs are having a sig cabot effect on that ply-demand balance an the reason is, the very simple point that when we buy assets and our total purchases, by the way, are a small share of the global amount of state's assets but when we buy states' assets we pay for them with bank reserves, another safe asset and one that's even more liquid. i don't think our asset purchases are significantly affecting the net supply of safe assets. put it's an issue we've looked at in margining and liquidity policy. . >> in the last five years, the fed has navigated a mine field of taking actions that were at the edge of traditional fed policy, sometimes generating questions about fed independence
and challenges to the fed independence and it's a topic that many of the audience members are working on. where do you think the greatest threat to central bank independence comes from? is it from the innovative policies on the macro prudential side and the dealing of financial institutions or aggregate financial sector or innovative policies on what i call the monetary policy side dealing with the stimulus-type role. >> that is a political question and i'm not sure i can do it justice. let me just say a preliminary thing, i don't think the central bank should be equally independent in all of its functions. there are good reasons to have independence in monetary policy making subject to a mandate or subject to objectives set by the democratic parliament or legislature and we understand
those reasons having to do with avoiding short-run political intervention in monetary policy and the like. but in many of its other activities, for example, as a bank regulator, while we believe bank regulators should be independent to make their own judgments about the quality of banks, i don't think it can be independent than the o.c.c. it's another aspect of our activities. in our provision of payment services, there probably is no real case for independence and entirely appropriate for the congress to ask questions about what we are charging for those services and how we are providing for them and so on. it depends very much on the aspect of particular activity that the central bank is involved in. so independence is a subtle concept. what it means various -- varies
according to the particular function. again, if we are worried about independence, the place where all central banks were independent is mostly on the monetary policy side and there the best we can do is to do our very best to meet the mandate that congress has given us. if we don't meet that mandate, then they would have -- or if we don't meet and can't show why we didn't meet it, they would have a reasonable basis to ask why. so i think in the long run, the best thing we can do to maintain monetary policy independence is to show we will take all reasonable measures to meet the objectives that the congress has set for us and of course that's what we intend to do. >> shifting from the domestic pressures to the international pressures, some have argued that in the last few years, the
policies of the fed and those of the european central bank have risked a currency war of sorts. do you view that as an inspropet argument that is simply wrong or some validity to the worry but simply was a cost that had to be borne as a cost of other objectives that the fed was trying to achieve. >> i gave some remarks on this at a london event for mere vin king's retirement and appropriate for today's discussion, i used a historical example. i made the distinction, during the 1930's, during the great depression, as countries left their standard, currencies temporarily depreciated relative to other countries and they had a temporary trade advantage because of that. but over time as all the
countries left the gold standard, exchange rates normalized and went back to where they started from, but the whole world wasn't left much better off because there was a monetary expansion that was desperately needed at that time in the 1930's. that was a positive sum game. it was a situation in which everybody gains, because the benefits in that particular context, the benefits of growth enhancing domestic policies spills over into other economies. i contrasted that with the smooth-ha wmp ley tariff because what was going on there each country was trying to divert trade in its own favor at the expense of its trading partners and as that activity continued payback sals and
continued, actually it destroyed the global trade pattern and was very costly to everybody. what has this got to do with your question, i'm sure you're wondering -- [laughter] >> it's one thing to use trade or other kivendse of interventions to -- kinds of interventions to divert your currency or otherwise divert exports to your own producers at countries. of other that's a different thing from the situation where countries are using monetary policy appropriately to achieve domestic growth, domestic inflation and growth spills over and helps the economies of other countries as well. i think that's very much the
difference, that the exchange rate effects and the currency effects are secondary. what is important is that each country provide the necessary monetary accommodation or fiscal its odation to achieve potential output. and this, i should say this view is not just my own, but a view that has been adopted by the g-7 and g-20 as a reasonable way of thinking about policy in different countries. monetary policy in the united states, again, we are very much consistent with that g-20 perspective and i guess i would close this answer by saying, if you look at the dollar, it's not exactly falling recently. it seems to be doing ok. i don't think we are trying to divert exports away from anybody
else. what we are trying to do is achieve domestic growth using the tools that we have. >> the next question is going to take you back to the historical perspective of your talk. it has two components to it. the first is over the first 100 years of the federal reserve, do you believe the fed has given too little weight to issues of regulation and financial stability relative to other objectives and in looking at the lessons over this period, are there -- there tends to be a focus on issues associated with the great depression in looking at the early years of the fed. do you think there are other important years of the fed that can convey important lessons about thinking of current policy? >> on the financial stability, the fed was founded as i mentioned and fed was founded for the purpose of preserving
financial stability. it had some success early on. and then, of course, the great depression came and for various reasons, stigma was mentioned earlier, but i think there were other reasons as well, lacking aggressive financial policy on the part of the federal reserve, the feth didn't meet its mandate during the 1930's. now a less attention to financial stability during the period from 1934 until 1980 or so would be understandable because -- because of structural commanges and regulatory changes. that was a calm period in u.s. financial markets, and as a result, the attention to financial stability became less over time. as chairman volcker reminded us
earlier, it's not just recently that we have seen financial stability issues, the mexican debt crisis, latin american debt crisis, the crises of the 1990's, the wall street market crash and other events should remind inded us and did us that financial instability remains a concern, remains a problem, what we lack or didn't happen, fortunately, of course, between 1934 and 2007, there was no financial collapse of a a magnitude that had serious negative implications for the u.s. economy. now that we have seen that and as i mentioned in my remarks that i think is a very important lesson and the federal reserve and other central banks have accordingly elevated financial stability and increased the
resources we put into helping preserve financial stability and greatly increased the emphasis we put on that particular objective. so i think there was a long period where the fed didn't pay much attention to it but it was an accident related to the fact that we had a calm, global financial environment for a long time. we now know that financial stability is important even in advanced industrial countries like the united states and i expect we won't forget that lesson. >> this is another question, the passage of the federal reserve act in 1912 was a substantial political achievement. given the political tone in washington, if the federal reserve act had to be enacted, how do you think it would differ from the existing legislation, and could it be passed? >> there would be more than one federal reserve bank in the western united states. that's my answer.
[laughter] >> on that note, my last question is a legacy question. at some point and i'm not going to ask you when you think this might be, your time as chair of the federal reserve will conclude. i happen to know and some people already know that you have a legacy that i believe no other federal reserve chairman has, which is there is an interchange on i-95 in dillon, south carolina that is named bernanke interchange. but all seriously, as you think the legacy that you will have as a chairman of the fed, what would you hope the high points of that would be and where would you like people focusing on the contributions? >> that's going to be for others to determine.
i guess what i would hope to be able to say is several things. first, i came into the federal reserve as a governor. 11 years ago. quite a long time. with a lot of interest in communication and transparency. and i think in the last 11 years or eight years, however you want to count, the federal reserve has made significant strides in that area, including, for example, as i mentioned, the press conference to stating of a numerical objective for medium-term communication and other innovations as well and that has changesed over the last decade. for better or worse, i was at the fed during the crisis and
the aftermath. we have the future again will judge the response to that, but what is certainly true is the federal reserve as an institution has changes changed in terms of the structure and financial stability questions. and i would say that this relates both to the actions we took at the height of the crisis, which i viewed as bringing wisdom back into the modern context, but also the work we're doing now to try to reduce the risk that another financial crisis will hit some day. that includes our monitoring, our oversight of important firms, our stress tests, which i think is an important development in financial regulation and more germly our macro prudential approach to financial stability which means we not only look to individual
firms, but we try to identify risks and vulnerabilities to the financial system more broadly. in monetary policy, we confronted the zero lower bound and people will have to judge whether we confronted it successfully and we have, in fact, changed to some extent our approach to one that is more tied to the forecast and tries o lay out in more detail how monetary policy will react over time to changing economic conditions. there are some changes in monetary policy. but finally, i think federal reserve is a remarkable institution. it has a great staff -- >> we are going to leave this nd see all of his remarks at c-span 2. the house is coming back in. committee of the whole house on
the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2609 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 60, line 12. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw for a recorded vote that the amendment stand as disposed of by the voice vote taken on the
amendment. the chair: without objection. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. bass of california. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the request vote is rded withdrawn. accordingly, the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment by mr. polis of colorado, amendment by mr. burgess of texas, amendment by mr. burgess of texas, amendment by ms. titus of nevada, amendment by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 114, the nays are 308. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, on which the further proceedings were postponed, on which the -- on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. by this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by ms. titus on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. titus of nevada. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are p 37, the amendment -- the nays are 337 trk the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote chesm clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request
for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]
amendments? for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will send his amendment to the desk, lease. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. insert the following. section. none of the funds made available in this act in the administration fund may be used by the department of energy for my program, project or activity required by or otherwise roposed in the memorandum of secretary choo with the subject line, power marketing
administrator's role and dated march 16, 2012. the chair: the committee will be in order. please remove conversations from the floor. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: on march 16, 2012, the secretary of energy issued a memo. this is referred as the choo memorandum and created concern among our constituents who rely on power, marketing for affordable and energy. there are four marketing administrations which have been delivering clean energy to consumers over 75 years. the p.m.a.'s have been successful models with local stakeholders and guided principle of beneficiary pays, meaning who benefits from the
p.m.a. infrastructure ultimately bears the costs. the former secretary's memo directs the p.m.a.'s to act in areas involving transmission, expansion, renewable energy, energy efficiency and cyber secretary. all laudible goals, all goals i support. i strongly advocated for the expansion of transmission here in congress. however, i believe the department of energy means to these goals, the choo memo, could impose greater costs and risks that outweigh benefits and this issue has gone scrutiny in congress over the past year. last year, congressman matheson from utah expressed a concern over the choo memo. that letter was signed by 160 senators and representatives,
evenly split between democrats and republicans. the house appropriations committee approved similar language to what i am putting forth today by voice vote to the 2013 energy and water appropriations bill barring the secretary from implementing the choo directives. there are few issues that congress has had such consensus on in the past. the house natural resources committee has had multiple hearings and major topic of conversation at our recent p.m.a.f.y. hearing. they expressed how the d.o.e. might move forward. it is best if we stop this train wreck before moving forward. my amendment would simply prohibit the par marketing agencies from utilizing their budgets to implement any new program, project or activity proposed under the guise of this memo. it is not intended to disrupt any activities of the p.m.a.'s
eville.bonn it is the recommendations of the memo fall far from the d.o.e.'s authority. if they would like to move memo, this ensures the administration will have to come forward in a transparent manner and request legal authority. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment that will preserve the existing power program and ensure our constituents electricity costs stay low. i urge support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. does the gentleman yield back? mr. gosar: yes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i support the gentleman's amendment. we have a similar provision in last year's bill and we know the concerns are acute in the power marketing regions. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is goode to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky. insert the followinne mr. whitfield: i move the reading be dispensed with. the chair: the gentleman has two versions at the desk. could he identify which version -- mr. whitfield: the one in handwriting. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky at the end of the bill before the short
title insert the following new section, section, none of the funds -- mr. whitfield: i move that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the chair: is there objection? >> could he continue to read. the clerk: none of the funds made available by this act under the heading renewable, energy reliability and efficiency may be used by the department of energy for wind energy programs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i would like to explain number one why i'm offering this amendment and then number two specifically what this amendment does. the reason it is in handwriting is that after we submitted the written, the printed amendment at a conversation with the parliamentarian and a suggestion was made to change it so it was changed. this administration has made it very clear to the american people that it is trying to
dictate the fuels used to produce electricity in america. and they have made it very clear at they are flagrantly discriminating and giving preferential treatment to the wind industry. now why do i say that? i don't say it because of the 12 -- $12.1 billion production tax credit that the wind industry has received this year and i don't say it because of the billions of dollars that the wind industry has received in past years. but i say it because the administration has decided not to prosecute the wind industry for violation of the migratory bird treaty act or the balled or golden eagle protection act or the endangered species act. the obama administration has
never prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles or other protected bird species shielding the industry from liability and helping keeping the scope of the deaths secret asoareding to an associated press investigation. as a matter of fact, to show you how the administration is being very discriminatory in the prosecution of these acts, british petroleum was fined $100 million for killing migratory birds in the gulf oil spill. exxonmobil was fined $600,000 for killing 5 birds. pacific corps was fined $10.5 million. a utility in wyoming was fined $100,000 for killing one eagle. and i could go on and on and on. but more than 573,000 birds were
killed by the country's wind farms last year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles according to an estimate published in the peer review "wildlife society." we now this administration is getting the reputation of deciding what federal laws it's going to enforce and which ones it's not going to enforce and now they are deciding that we re going to prosecute on endangered species act, eagle protection act, migratory protection act if you are in this sector, but if you are in the wind industry, we aren't going to prosecute you. you know what is even worse than that? they are now deciding they want to carve out and the obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind energy
companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecute -- prosecution of any birds. the regulation is currently under review at the white house. the proposal made at the urging of the wind industry would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill bald eagles, golden eagles and other migratory birds. previously companies were only eligible for five-year permits. it is basically guaranteeing a black box for 30 years and they are saying trust us for oversight. this is not the path forward id katie, a renewable energy attorney with the natural resources defense council. why should the american people be given billions of dollars to this industry and allow this administration not to prosecute them when they are obviously
killing thousands of birds indirect violation of the migratory bird act, the gold and balled eagle protection act and the endangered species act? it says that the $24 million set aside for research and development in the committee report, that it not be allowed to use that money simply because of the extraordinary protection this administration is going to, to prevent them from being prosecuted under existing federal law that this congress has passed many years ago. and that's the purpose of the amendment. and i would respectfully urge members to vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. i rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment because i know my colleague and friend from
kentucky has an incredible reputation of being friends of animals and birds and obviously we are concerned about the issues he's raised. our bill already reduces the wind energy program from $59 million to $24 million, a cut of nearly 60%. his amendment goes a step farther by eliminating the wind energy program entirely, which would result in the termination of the first offshore wind at-scale demonstration in the united states and result in a dramatic dropoff of deployment of wind energy systems. this setback would come at a time when wind is renewable energy's fastest growing sector. i oppose my colleague's amendment and we are listening to what he said, but i still oppose it. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?
>> strike the last word. mr. garamendi: i think the gentleman misses the gentleman who is proposing the amendment is missing some major points. before wind energy project can continue or go into effect, it has to meet very stringent environmental requirements. the -- those environmental requirements, among other things deal specifically with all types of birds. and i will tell you that in my current district and in my previous district, i had the major wind farms in california and no project was allowed to go forward without addressing these issues. under the endangered species act, it is possible for incidental takes to take place if there is appropriate mitigation. and i know from the projects in my area, there had to be appropriate mitigation. the modern wind turbines are
different from the old wind turbines which were deadly to birds. the modern wind turbines are far less so. and if there is an incidental take of a listed speaksey, it can only occur with proper mitigation. your reference to the author's reference to the issue of a long -time take opportunity only occurs if there happens to be adaptive management program in plays that allows the fish and wildlife service and other appropriate agencies to review the process and progress or lack thereof and apply different measures or stop the projects at that time. so i would oppose the amendment. i think it is based upon incorrect facts. and i join the chairman in
opposition. . . the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i move to tissue i rise in opposition to theament. st year, wind nrnl was the largest growing energy source. overall, wind capacity grew by 28%. it demonstrates win energy is an affordable, reliable source of power that produces no carbon or other air pollution. but the recent success of wind energy in our country dun mean we should stop investing in it, we need to do more, not less to develop and deploy wind energy technologies and we are busy doing that along the great lakes. wind energy will play an important role in the transition to a cleaner energy
economy. according to the american wind energy association, year alone, u.s. wind projects will avoid nearly 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide being poured into the atmosphere, the equivalent of reducing power sector emissions by over 4% or taking more than 17 million cars off the road. in addition to cutting carbon pollution, it's a boon to our economy. in 2012, the industry supported more than 0,000 full-time equivalent jobs including more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs at more than 550 facilities. as the global clean energy economy grow the united states has a tremendous opportunity to attract more investment here and create even more manufacturing jobs, including in kentucky and ohio. but we are at risk of missing out on this opportunity at a time when the global clean energy market is get manager competitive, the united states
is starting to lag behind. in 2012, china's level of clean energy financing surpassed our country's for the first time. year after year, some house republicans have pushed budgets and appropriation bills that would slash funding for clean energy and energy efficiency programs. this appropriation bill is no exception. mr. whitfield's amendment takes it one step farther. eliminating all department of energy wind energy programs is exactly the wrong approach and one that will hurt our nation's competitiveness in this growing market. it certainly isn't consistent with an all of the above energy strategy. some may argue it makes sense to cut government investment in wind energy since it is a more mature technology than some emerging technologies but wind energy isn't operating on a level playing field. the united states currently provides enormous government subsidies and tax beaks to fossil fuels. in fact, the international
monetary fund issued a reporting finding that the united states provides more subsidy to fossil fuel than any country in the world, even china. ur annual subsidies total over one-half of a trillion dollars. we shouldn't cede the growing global energy market to china or other competitors. i know quite a bit about this because ohio has been blessed with wind energy. i represent the saudi arabia of wind energy, lake erie. it's the warm thoves lakes, so it's the bird haven on the mississippi flyway. we have more fish, fauna, an birds than all the other great lakes combined. with that mississippi flyway coming up, we have lots of eagles, lots of different types of birds, the cormorans are ome that are problematic but
nonetheless we are a bird haven. and we've learned that the wind turbines don't cause us any trouble. we have to situate them sometime there's miles from shore. we have a -- the biggest killer of birds is cats. nationwide. and so if you really want to look at where the problem is, maybe we need more cat control. but honestly, for the number of turbines we have erected, what happens, especially when offset of turbines operating in the area they create an updraft an the birds, they're pretty smart, they fly above the wind. they're amazing. they float. they float on the pathway that the turbines generate. and in addition to that, there are new technologies like strobe lights that are actually a fix -- affixed to the turbines and they keep birds away. it's almost like a silent radar in a way. there are new technologies being developed to deal with that. we actually want birds, we want turbines, we want clean energy, we want all types of energy in our region, we haul coal out of
kentucky to many of our power plants, so we have an all the above strategy in our region but we really welcome the wind opportunities, cleveland, ohio, and an investment group called leadco is doing everything possible to move adecisional turbines soont the great lakes. so i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against it and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the amendment is not greed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? ms. titus: i move to strike the
last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. titus: i rise this evening to speak on a serious issue that affect misconstituents, i've been investigating it since it was brought to my attention several months ago, through our local media. the department of energy is in the process of moving dangerous radio oklahoma cityive -- radioactive waste across the country from east tennessee to southern nevada. this waste is destinned for the nevada nuclear security site formerly on the as nevada test site. this is a totally separate issue now from the proposed yucca mountain storage site debate we heard earlier today. if you're unaware that this radioactive waste is traveling through your backyard, i'm not surprised. the d. omplete has failed to properly inform congress about this activity. the project involves the transport of hundreds of canisters containing high
concentration of fissile materials from the consolidated edison uranium solidify case project in oak ridge, tennessee, to be dumped in my state of nevada. the materials are so radioactive that they have a half-life of more than 160,000 years. i want to be clear now, this is not the kind of low-level waste that the nevada test site has been accepting for years. in fact, just weeks ago, i learned that the department of energy had reworked the waste acceptance criteria for the security site to allow storage of materials that have raid y active concentrations more than 40 times, 40 times, higher than anything that has ever been brought to the site for disposal before. that revision to the w.a.c., or waste acceptance criteria, was signed off on by the d.o.e. the same day agency officials met with my staff and state and
local officials, yet domplet o. of e. didn't think it was necessary or -- yet d.o.e. didn't think it was nestor important to inform any of us about this change. it took an internet search days later to discover that d.o.e. had reworked the playbook for the site without any public input. mr. chairman, there are far too many questions about what d.o.e. is doing and plans to do at the nevada test site. questions that so far have gone unanswered. nevadans have had a lot of experience dealing with federal officials throughout the days of atomic testing and during the cold war. we're not going to just turn aside now an let the d.o.e. run roughshod over our communities. i can tell you i'm not alone in expressing my concerns about the d.o.e.'s activities. our republican governor, brian sandoval, has also publicly to he his opposition shipment of radioactive waste.
in a letter to the energy secretary, our government stated that classifying the material as low-level waste sets a dangerous precedent and i ask unanimous consent please to submit the letter to the record from governor sandoval. the chair: the gentlelady's request is covered under general leave. ms. titus: my district sits just 65 miles southeast of the nevada test site. the las vegas metropolitan area is home to nearly two million residents and nearly 40 million visitors annually. any plan to transport waste through the heart of the las vegas valley would be extremely risky and incredibly irresponsible. e stakes are too high to gamble on district one's safe thism d.o.e. has refused to cooperate with arepeated attempts to gather additional information to have oversight. it's unthinkable that the d.o.e. is moving forward with
this program without properly briefing members of congress. if we are being kept in the dark, who is overseing the d.o.e.'s plans? it's critical that d.o.e. be forthright about how and why the w.a.c. was changed, how the changes relate to the proposed shipment and how the changes will affect the safety and security of southern nevada and communities across the country in the past of -- in the path of this transportation. i'd like to thank the chairman and especially the ranking member for allowing me to bring this to the attention of the house and i would ask them to work with me to ensure that there's proper congressional oversight of d.o.e. and that the people of nevada and beyond get the answers that they deserve. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report -- will the gentleman specify the amendment? >> marked on the bottom left as july 10, 2013.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. turner of ohio, at the end of the bill before the short title -- mr. turner: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 29 -- to h.r. 2906. i offer this amendment in response to the president's recent address in berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce the united states' strategic arsenal below acceptable levels and in contravention of current law. the president's latest proposal would once again call for unilateral reductions in our arsenal at a time when countries like russia and china continue to expand and modernize their arsenals. to make matters worse, the president has undertaken this effort without the consent of the united states senate as required under the arms control and disarmament act which states international agreement cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the united
states unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional executive agreement. not only do the president's continued calls for weapons reductions yep ardies the safety and security of the united states but he compromises the safety of our partner nations. it is unacceptable that the president continues to make secret deals with countries like russia while at the same time breaking promises with the american people and our allies. the current threat environment around the world is very real and should not be underestimated. a robust nuclear arsenal is critical in deterring emerging threats like iran and north korea. my amendment simply ensuring that -- ensures that none of the funds appropriated by this act may be qused to further reduce nuclear force reductions outside of the formal process established under existing law. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
mr. frelinghuysen: i support the gentleman's amendment and salute his leadership in this area, both in this congress and the past congresses and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for phi minute -- for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. first of all, it is unnecessary because there are no fund in the f.y. 2014 bill allocated to be used for nuclear weapons reduckses below the new start levels. the amendment in my opinion is constitutionally questionable because it impinges on the president's ability to set u.s. nuclear weapons policy and usurps the president's ability to retire, dismantle, or eliminate nondeployed nuclear weapons. this amendment restricts the president's constitutional authority to negotiate international agreements, including sole executive agreements for arms reductions.
it impinges on the president's authority to determine the number of strategic delivery vehicles needed to meet national security requirements and implement changes in those forces as appropriate. it limits the president's authority to determine appropriate force structure to meet nuclear deterrence requirements and set nuclear deployment policy, authority exercised by every president in the nuclear age. frankly, it is bad policy. blocking nuclear weapons reducks is out of step with post-cold war and post-9/11 security environments. secretary schultz, secretary kissinger, secretary nun and secretary perry have all encouraged further nuclear reductions stating in 2007, and i quote, unless urgent new actions are taken, the united states will soon be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious and economically more costly than what the -- than was cold war
deterrence. the amendment disregards potential military requirements including potential strategic command recommendationeds and instead inposes congressional requirements. it seems to restrict any reductions to bilateral negotiations with russia so it outsources decisions on u.s. nuclear force structure to russia. and it requires maintenance of nuclear weapons levels that might be costly and unnecessary in an era of budget constraint. i think that the amendment is poorly written and will not achieve its objective. it fails to ban unilateral reductions by referencing the a.c.r.a. section 303b of the arms control act. it fails to keep deployed forces at 1,550 and as written it aplows the whole stockpile to decline to that level since that's the limit in new start.
this does not make sense. neither the active or nonactive stockpile and deployed warheads and delivery vehicles. and while operationally warheads are part of the active stockpile, the size is not limited. supporting 1,550 warheads would require the department of defense and department of energy to maintain an active stockpile in excess of 1,550 warheads. new start does not count nonstrategic warheads and it is unclear if the amendment is counting the nonstrategic warheads under the new start. i would like to submit additional comments for the record. obviously, i disagree with the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose his amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is goode to. -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by -- lujan of new mexico. and increasing the amount available civil construction by $15 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lujan: this is the purpose of addressing several issues in new mexico. more specifically, my amendment would increase the construction account by $15 million to ensure local governments like the city middle rioho and the
grande district get reimbursed. it works with local governments to construct levees, implement flood control measures and other important infrastructure for the safety of the public. the city of rio rancho entered into a contract and has not been paid back for several years due to the lack of appropriations. the same goes for the county and the district and others across the country. this delay in reimbursement has led to interruptions for financing city projects and potential to hurt the credit ratings of these entities. by increasing dollar amounts in this account which includes a number of programs like engineering, construction, technical assistance, flood control and environmental infrastructure, we can get these entities reimbursed and get
these off the books to get the projects going. local governments have been left holding an i.o.u. for doing work based on good faith agreements with the army corps of engineers. mr. chairman, i understand that there may be opposition from the republican majority, but i hope i can persuade the chairman to support me. section 593 of the water resources development act of 1999 under which the city and other local governments entered into agreements with the army corps of engineers. if the republican majority agrees with the authority, they should repeal it. but let's make the local governments whole. when cities and local governments enter into contracts, they expect to be reimburred. they have annual budgets with the expectations they will get paid back. congress should live up to these obligations and the authorities given to these agencies by congress. i understand that the constraints that the committee is dealing with, but we need to
make these local governments whole. going forward, if this is an authority that the republican authority should do away with it, but let's make these local governments whole. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from new mexico's amendment. the corps of engineers has no particular expertise or reason for being the funding source especially when we are looking at tight budgets to begin with, we must focus funding on activities which have the greatest impact on our economy and public safety. namely navigation and flood control, our historic responsibility. i must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nugent of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to bring an action against the united states. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nugent: since coming to the house of representatives a little over two years ago, i made it a priority to revitalize the economy in central florida. i have had the opportunity to meet with community leaders in my district and surrounding areas to talk about projects that matter the most to them, drudging of canals and building of new roads.
the army corps of engineers is slow-rolling many of these projects, not because they want to, but because they are forced to. the corps continues to move the goal posts and these communities and once permits has been given, the corps comes back with fines, penalties and mitigation. if i asked them what is happening with these projects, it's the same thing, i constantly hear from the corps that they are worried about being sued and because these advocacy groups are worried about taking congress' responsibility and given it to the courts or the executive branch. these activists don't want people of the united states of america or their elected officials to have any say in how this country is run and force their own agenda on everybody else. even more disturbing, they are doing it with taxpayer money. these groups receive federal
grants and once they take the e.p.a. or any other agency to court, they get a cash settlement or payout to go away. that money goes back into the litigation system furtherering the problem. take for example, earth justice, in their tax year of 2011, in their tax form described themselves as a law firm dedicated to pursuing big impact litigation. 2011 filing includes seven pages of attorney fees that have been awarded to them and the document celebrates the fact that because of the work, the federal government is forced to back down. they have an entire section dedicated to stop the construction of the keystone xl pipeline and doing it with our money. groups like this get money for
grants and help fund lawsuits against the federal government and these agencies and guess what? they take that settlement money that we pay out to the tune of $5 million in 2011 for just one group, one advocacy group, earth justice. and that money comes from the pockets of the american people. whether or not you support the policy goals of groups like earth justice,er every single person in this room should be worried about their tactics. their mission is to take regulatory power out of the hands of congress and hand it to the courts. the goal is opposed to the vision our founding fathers had. nobody in this chamber should support add abdicating our constitutional responsibilities to activists that charge the tab back to the united states citizens and come back asking for even more money. madam chair, i appreciate the work that the chairman has done
in moving this particular bill through. in discussions with the chairman of the committee, we are going to withdraw this amendment, because i believe that we can work together to try to resolve this fact that these groups shouldn't profit on the backs of american taxpayers, blocking justice and the ability for these places, communities that i serve and others that are in this great nation, the ability to create jobs and with that, i withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill, amendment offered by mr. engel of new york, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to lease or purchase new light-duty
vehicles for any executive fleet fleet any agency's inventory except in accordance with presidential memorandum dated may 24, 2011. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance that requires all new light-duty vehicles to be alternate fuel vehicles which is hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel by december 21, 2015. y amendment echoes the presidential memorandum in the appropriations act of 2014 from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. our transportation sector is the reason we send $600 billion to hostile nations to pay for oil.
but america does president need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel. alternatives technologies exist today that would allow any alternative fuel to be used in america's auto fleet. the american government operates the largest fleet, according to g.s.a. over 660,000 vehicles in the federal fleet with over 14,000 being used by the department of -- this department of veteran affairs. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies, we will encourage development of domestic energy resources, biomass, natural gas, hydrogen, renewable electricity, ethan ol. saw in brazil, expanded their use of ethanol. and what an equivalent amount of
ethanol would cost. i want americans to make the same choices. if they can do it in brazil. we do it here. and let consumers decide what is best for them. expanding the role of these energy source is play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign government controlled oil companies and increase our domestic security and protect consumers in the world oil markets. i have introduced a bill along with the the gentlewoman from florida, that would also take a major step in this direction and i think that this policy is something that we need to move. so i ask that everyone supports the engel amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: pleased to accept the amendment from my
friend from new york and his advocacy on behalf of this cause. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. . the chair: the amendment from the gentleman from new york is currently pending. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garcia of florida. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the
following, section, the amount otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for corps of engineers civil expenses and by increasing the amount made available for corps of engineers civil construction by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. garcia: my amendment seeks to increase the amount of the corps of engineers civil construction account by $1 million. with hurricane season under way, it's critical we support the corps' efforts in this area. in h.r. 2609, chairman frelinghuysen has provided the corps of engineers with $1.3 billion for projects to mitigate natural disasters including hurricanes, storms, and floods. having live through the
hurricane sandy, i know the chairman is well aware of the value of these investments and i would like to thank the chairman and committee for their efforts on our behalf. by providing this additional nding for the corps to, they can address the threat of severe weather events and flooding this ecorps has upside take an number of flood projects throughout the country and we must continue to provide the funding we need to support these efforts. again i appreciate the efforts of the chairman and his committee's work in crafting this bill and supporting the corps' important work and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from from florida yields back rm for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to support the amendment and i thank the gentleman for his advocacy for his own congressional district and state and i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will reminority amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee to carry out section 301 of the hoover power plant 16421a 984, 42 u.s.c. added by section 402 of the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fleming: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment that would stop a
loan program created by the infamous 2009 stimulus bill. as i and many others pointed out, when the bill was passed, the stimulus, which was billed as funding shovel-ready programs, actually became a vehicle to rake in higher levels of -- -- to bake in higher levs of spending in new government programs. as with other government loan programs we have all too often seen abuses and mismanagement and this program is no exception. the elimination of the western area power administration's green transmission por lowing authority was recommended in the report to this year's house budget. and so if you voted for the budget, i would urge you to support this amendment as well. i also want to thank my colleagues, mr. mcclintock, chairman hastings, for their work in the offering and marking up of a bill last year to repeal this program. as the budget report notes, ote, the $3.25 billion
borrowing authority in the western area power administrations infrastructure program provides loans to develop new transition systems aimed solely at integrating renewable energy. this was inserted into the stimulus bill without opportunity for debate. of most concern, the authority includes a bailout provision that would require american taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that private developers fail to pay. this bill -- bailout provision is particularly problematic buzz because in november of 2011, the department of energy inspector general issued an alert on this stimulus borrowing authority. to quote from that report, because of a variety of problems the project is estimated two years behind schedule and $70 billion over budget. essentially out of funds and currently at a standstill with no improvement being made.
it is designed to ep sure -- ensure more effective safeguards are in place going forward. because western has committed $25 million in developmental funding to a potential $3 billion project that would ultimately require an investment of $1.5 billion in recovery act borrowing authority, we are issuing this report as a manage alert, end quote. madam chairman, this i.g. report speaks for itself. i urge my colleagues to support the repeal of this failed stimulus program and i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman cannot reserve. does the gentleman wish to yield back? mr. fleming: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
ms. kaptur: i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i'm not sure why he's doing this but the american recovery and reinvestment act provided $3.25 billion in borrowing authority to modernize the electricity grid. i believe your amendment focuses on wapa, the western area power marketing authority, solely is that correct, sir? mr. fleming: if the gentlelady will yield, that is correct. ms. kaptur: i don't live out there, i'm in an area that doesn't have one of these but most of the country is covered in power market authorities if you look at california, the t.v.a. regions that have borrowing authorities. the way they work is the rate payer pay back over time the cost of that investment. we have to invest in modernizing our grid. that part of the country is growing. and frankly, they have been
returning dollars at a fairly steady rate, i looked at the figures about a year ago. with the increase in renewables in the west, there's also a need to alter the grid and its ability to accept new forms of power that part of the country is grow, the population is exploding out there, so therefore we're going to have a greater use of power and more of a need to put it onto the system. so i don't see why the gentleman comes from louisiana, now i know you've got a lot of oil drilling down there in the gulf and a lot of us have voted for that but i don't understand the much of the gentleman's amendment. i'm mape to yield to the gentleman. mr. fleming: yes, thank you. these companies, they certainly are welcome to borrow money and invest it themselves. this puts the taxpayer on the hook and they're not delivering on these loans, they're well behind. and eventually the taxpayers,
as in so many cases from this stimulus bill are going to be picking up the tab. if it's so valuable and it returns investment over time, then fine, let them use their own capital. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i hear what the gentleman is say bug they do pay it back through usage. just like you pay a utility bill and it goes back to the company, essentially wap sambings a company. it borrows and then it pays back. and so these funds are going to be paid back over time. i wish i had won in my area. i think it would really help us out a lot. but i have to oppose the gentleman's amendment and i think it would be very counterproductive to hurt any part of our country an their power grid system, their ability to modernize their power grid system. the gentleman has i think southeast power marketing
authority, i don't know if that covers louisiana or not but different parts of the country have different systems that are in place and i wouldn't want to take away the west's ability to power themselves and to do so in a cost effective manner. i yield to the gentleman. mr. fleming: i thank you. again, i would have to say there's a dynamic to money and yes, some of it may be paid back but at the end of the day, the money is not fully paid back or paid back at the appropriate rate, and the taxpayers have to make up the difference, then i would say that certainly in the private sector, that wouldn't work out and i think that we should hold government, nongovernment, all those who handle money and particularly taxpayer money we need to hold them to the same standard. they're not delivering on that return of investment. ms. kaptur: i would beg to dimple i'm glad the gentleman stated that but i think you'll hear strongly from them that they are paying back, and they have a good rate of repayment. i remember our good colleague
norm diction, i said anything against wapa, i would be in trouble because they do have a very good rate of repayment and they have returned money consistently and paid back their original loans. soing they're free floating now and i think they have a good record. i oppose the gentleman's amendment, very strongly new york support of our colleagues in the west and their need for power and modernizing their electricity grid and i urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by thelt -- by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. fleming: madam chairman, i ask for a roll call vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will e postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i want to commend the staff, the chair, the ranking member and all of those who have work sod hard over the last couple of days to get this bill processed and to deal with all the amendments. it's been an arduous task and told, 's created, i am far more amendments than had ever been presented on any such appropriations bill in the
past. there's a reason for that. the reason is, this appropriation bill is a direct result of the what we fondly call or not so fondly call the ryan republican budget. this is really the first opportunity that america has to see the effects of a very austere budget. one that really decimates programs all across america. programs that are of great value and great utility. this particular subcommittee was presented with the mark that is the amount of money that it had available to it, as a result of that budget that was passed by the majority in this house. now that budget is not law, there has been no conference committee, in fact, the majority in this house has
refused to set up a conference committee, that is to put in names for that conference committee system of this is really a one-house budget that's being carried out here with this legislation. it is a remarkable and extraordinarily important moment in which the american public has a chance to see exactly what austerity has presented to us by the majority -- as presented to us by the majority means. it means that those research programs that allow america the opportunity to advance its energy programs, to take control of the energy programs of the future, the renewable energy program the nuclear energy programs, and on and on, those opportunities are lost. now i know the committee was faced with a very stringent budget, an austerity budget, they made decisions that are in
my view extraordinarily detrimental to america. specifically, a decision to take the money that was available to remove it from those programs that are the energy future of this nation, wind, solar, conservation, by yo fuels, automobiles that are efficient, houses that are efficient, programs that are absolutely crucial to this nation's future. and to the world's future because they deal specifically with climate change. the committee decided, the majority, that is decided to move money from those programs to the nuclear weapons program. to programs that are not needed. consider for a moment that the united states has over 5,500 nuclear bombs, sufficient to
end life on this planet. it's over if those were to be used and the military says we don't need them. programs that are inefficient, ineffective and are the sink holes of american taxpayers' money. the majority decided to move the money there. ok. who are we going to use those things on? we can't. we don't need them for deterrence. but yet that's where the money goes. not only does the money come from those energy programs that we absolutely need for our future, and for our economy's future, the money comes from programs that are absolutely essential for the well-being of americans today and tomorrow. the army corps of engineers protects our citizens with its levees and with its flood control projects. we've heard this over and over again for the last two days.
continues majority to insist to spend the money on these nuclear weapons. not on those things that are essential for today's life. essential for the well-being of people now as the storm season arrives here on the east coast with hurricanes, in the gulf states with hurricanes, and in my state of california, in my district where i have more than 1,500 miles of levees. people at risk. is amendment would take $100 million from these weapons systems and put that money directly into the army corps of engineers' constructions account so that the army corps of engineers can protect our citizens today. i ask for an aye vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, madam chair, i rise to oppose the amendment. e've gone over this ground
several times, so i'll be brief. all of us here strongly support investments in the corps' work and their projects. particularly those projects with the greatest benefit to public safety and the economy, namely flood control and navigation. but this amendment proposes to pay for additional corps construction by diverting funds needed for our nuclear weapons stockpile, for national security. and that is the most critical priority in our bill. and so i oppose -- strongly oppose the amendment, his amendment is unacceptable because it is an issue of national security and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, i rise today to voice my support for vital funding for important army corps of engineers projects across the palm beach-treasure
coast district that i proudly represent. this has funding for a project which will greatly improve the water quality in my district. mr. murphy: for those of you unfamiliar with this local treasure, it is the most diverse estuary in north america. many of its species are already threatened or endangered. but due to extreme pollution, local officials have issued health warnings, advising residents to not contact this waterway. tragically, it has also witnessed a major die-off of its population of manatees, dolphins, pelicans and other crucial species. completion of this project is essential to protecting this vital ecosystem, as well as improving the water quality throughout the region. the c-44 project is part of a broader everglades restoration ever that the army corps' tasked with which will protect this unique and important habitat. furthermore, the everglades provide drinking water for one
in three floridians and restoration efforts have a 3-1 return investment on the local economy. completion of the overall project will shore up florida's access to clean drinking water and improve the local environment and economy. locally, everglade restoration is part of the solution to the harmful discharges that are currently being released from the lake to the river on the treasure coast. by improving water quality in the area through projects such as c-44, we can mitigate the effects of these harmful discharges from the lake, continue to have -- effects from harmful discharges the lake continue to have on the area. this project keeps local residents safe from devastating flooding that could occur if the dike were to fail. the army corps has already been struggling to meet its obligations on this and other projects which is why we must
continue to provide funding or risk further delaying these important ongoing jobs. in addition to the important indian river lagoon, the lake and the hoover dike project this bill supports, it also provides important funding for inlet dredging projects. being able to access and safely navigate our local waterways and ports is essential for public safety and our economy. the same can be said for those shore restoration pradges -- programs that this bill also funds. returning our local beaches to their prestorm conditions after extreme weather events such as hurricane sandy. if you speak with any of my constituents, they will alltel that you all of these projects are vie -- all tell you that all of these projects are vital to their daily life and the population and the economy. we must provide certainty and continue funding for the corps. jeopardizing funding for these ongoing projects would only further aggravate the serious problems of toxic discharges in my district, prevent progress on essential water quality
restoration projects and have an overall negative impact on our local environment and, in turn, our local economy. to me that's simply not an option. madam speaker, we have the obligation to provide adequate resources for programs that protect public safety, water quality and our environment such as these. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the underlying legislation, to continue to fund these ongoing projects that are critical to the well-being of the treasure coast and palm beaches. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the
desk, it's number 26. 026. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the study of the missouri river projects authorized in section 108 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act, 2009, division c of public law 111-8. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, madam chair. the missouri-mississippi river basins have faced challenges over the past few years there from flooding and droughts. this devastation, combined with the sluggish economy and our aging inland waters -- waterways infrastructure, means that now more than ever we must focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded river projects. my amendment would prohibit funding for the missouri river authorized purposes study, also
known as mr. aps. it comes on the heels of a comprehensive $35 million 17-year study that showed that the current authorized purposes are important and should be maintained. this congress and this administration need to focus on protecting human life and property by maintaining the safety and soundness of our levees. we also must support the important commercial advantages provided to us by inland waterways system. the missouri river moves goods to the market is an important tool in both domestic and international trade. that's why american waterways operators, the coalition to protect the missouri river, the missouri farm bureau, the missouri corn growers group support this amendment. this study puts in jeopardy not only the lower missouri river, but also the flow of the mississippi river which should create -- which could create devastating consequences for navigation and transportation. resulting in various waterway operators, agriculture and every product that depends on the missouri and in mississippi
rivers to get it to market. the current authorized uses of the missouri river provide necessary resources and translate into continued economic stability not only for missourians but also for many americans living throughout the missouri and lower mississippi river basins. this study is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. on this exact issue we've already spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of public meetings and extensive litigation. offered identical language during our first debate on the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution that. amendment passed by a vote of 245-176. in the fiscal year debates of 2012 and 2013, the exact amendment passed by a voice vote and by a vote of 242-168. and was later signed into law by president obama. i appreciate my colleagues who offered their support and hope to have their support again. madam chair, there's no doubt in my mind that water resources
receive too little funding. it is time for the federal government to refocus and reprioritize to create safer, more efficient infrastructure for our inland waterways and stop spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars unnecessarily. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise briefly to engage the chairman and the ranking member in a colloquy. first, i would like to thank chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member capture for their work on this bill and in particular for their willingness to hear my concerns regarding the needs of the u.s. army corps of engineers.
i think i speak for all of us when i say that a well-funded army corps of engineers means good jobs and important infrastructure improvements in the regions helped by their projects. mr. himes: of particular interest to me is the special role that the army corps plays in mitigating floods created by severe weather events in our communities. i know i'm not the only member in this room whose district was avaged by superstorm andy. -- superstorm sandy. chairman frellen hughesen -- frelinghuysen's district was also affected by the storm and sandy is only an example of the magnitude of damage our cities and towns suffer when they're not adequately prepared. with limited resources available after a storm like sandy, flood mitigation efforts have become more important than ever. an ounce of prevention is, as they say, worth a pound of cure. mr. chairman, madam chairman, back in 2010 i was able to secure an authorization for the army corps of engineers to
conduct flood mitigation studies in my area. studies that would culminate in an important recommendation for preventing future flood damages in fairfield county. like those that occurred during sandy, irene and countless other storms in recent years. unfortunately with the current backlog at the corps, it is unlikely that these studies or any other so-called new start projects will receive the funding they need to move forward as promised and needed years ago. i know there are dozens if not hundreds of projects waiting for army corps funding and i have no dilution that my district is more deserving than others for this funding. but perhaps it is time to reevaluate -- re-evaluate the necessity of the older projects, reprioritizing the projects that are still necessary and those that are most urgent. we must find a way to begin new projects and ensure that our cities and towns, like those in fairfield county, are prepared for the next big storm. i would ask the chairman and ranking member whether this ban on new start projects is
something that merits further consideration. i yield to the chairman, the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. himes of connecticut makes a good point about the importance of making infrastructure investments before major disasters can occur. i sure -- i share his concerns about the backlog of army corps of engineers projects, particularly in the backdrop of communities throughout new england and the midatlantic area who continue to rebuild after one of the worst storms in our nation's history. i want to assure the gentleman the committee's position on new starts is reconsidered each and every year. we take a look at the funding requirements of ongoing studies and projects, new studies and projects and overall funding levels for certain accounts. i commend the gentleman for his attention to this issue. i looked for to working with him to address these needs, new needs at the earliest appropriate time and i yield my time back to him. mr. himes: i look forward to working with the chairman as well and i yield now to the ranking member, the gentlelady
from ohio. ms. kaptur: i join chairman frelinghuysen and representative himes in emphasizing the importance of the army corps of engineer projects. the army corps of engineers has an important presence in the great lakes region, operating as -- operating an electrified barrier in the chicago area waterway system to keep the invasive asian carp from entering the great lakes and devastating the fishing industry and ecosystem of 1/5 of the world's freshwater. so i appreciate the gentleman from connecticut for acknowledging the importance of corps projects yonled the eastern seaboard and i agree -- beyond the eastern seaboard and i agree that it's preventing the corps from taking on new projects in a time-effective manner which is particularly problematic as we approach hurricane season once again. i look forward to working with mr. himes in deciding how we can ensure new projects get the funding they need while also honoring those worthy projects which have been waiting for some time now. mr. himes: i thank the ranking
member and look forward to working with her on this as well and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek ecognition? >> i have an amendment at the dai, number 207. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. at the end they have bill insert the follow, nub of the funds made available in this act may be used to conduct the study conducted by the army corps of engineers of the water resources development act of 2007. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, madam chair from extreme flooding to extreme drought, the united states has been hit hard over the past few years. the families who live and work along the missouri river have endured great hardship. though it's one of our nation's
greatest resourcers, the missouri river would be -- would produce flooding and be unfit for navigation were it not for the army corps of engineers. they first started the stabilization flodget 1912 with the goal of mitigating flood risk and maintaining a 1/2 fwabble channel from sioux city, iowa, to the mouth of the river. while it was completed in the 1980's, the corps' ability to make adjustments as needed remains crucial to this day. president obama in his fiscal year 2013 budget requested $70 million which would go toward funding environmental restoration studies and projects this dwarfs the insufficient $8.4 million requested for the entire operations and maintenance of the aforementioned bsnp. it is preprost rouse to think the environmental projects are more important than the protection of human life i feel don't take for fwrant the
importance of river ecosystems. i grew up near the river as did many of my constituents. yet we have reached a point where we value the welfare of fish and birds more than the welfare of our fellow human beings. our priorities are backwards, madam chair my amendment will eliminate the missouri river ecosystem program a study at's become little more than a tool by some for returning the river to its natural state with little regard to flood control, navigation, power generation or the people who depend on the river for their livelihoods. -- nd the study will no will not impede the abilities of the corps of engineer to do their work. the people have had to foot the bill for these studies are the very people who lost their farms, businesses and homes. our vote today will also show
our constituents that this congress is aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental efforts and the funding for the protection of our citizens. during a debate on -- during debate on fiscal year 2012 and 2013 appropriation the house passed this exact language which was sought to be signed into law by president obama. it is supported by the american waterways operators, the missouri farm bureau, the missouri corn growers association. it is time for congress to take a serious look at water development funding priorities. it is time to send a message to the federal entities that manage our waterways. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support our nation's river communs and encourage more balance in federal fund for water infrastructure and management. madam chair, i wreeled back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
ms. kaptur: i rise to express my opposition to the gentleman's amendment and my support for a river system that works. the water resources development act of 2007, which was passed with such bipartisan support that it overcame a presidential veto, authorized the corps to undertake the missouri river ecosystem restoration plan and develop the missouri river recovery implementation committee to consult on the study this authority provided a venue for collaboration between the 70-member stake holder roup of tribes, stake holder groups and others to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the missouri river ecosome. by prohibiting the corps from expending any 2013 funds on the study and the committee, we continue the delay that started with the same shortsighted amendment that was adopted last year, sadly. this will lead to further erosion of trust in the delicate partnerships in the
basin and while the corps will continue to comply with the endangered species requirements to other activities i believe there's a role far long-term plan for the basin. we face the same sort of issue in my part of the country where we have rivers an lakes that carry commercial trade but we also have an ecosystem that we are part of and we are learning as a world thousand deal with the natural systems of which we are all a part. so i think what's been incredible with the missouri river system is to see some of the flooding that's been prevented because of the corps' work for a century now and i think all the american people support efforts to try to contain the power of that river, at times when it could flood communities and harm both the people and our developed environment. but i don't realy support the gentleman's amendment because i do think there's a role for the
ecosome to be contemplated when long-term planning is done. and with what's happening with rainfall, what's happening with population explosion and so forth, it's more incumbent upon us to work together and try to figure out thousand work through those partnerships. i oppose the amendment but encourage my colleagues to do so and yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady -- the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word. >> i move to strike the last word. choi gentleman is recognize for five minutes. >> i rise to engage in a
colloquy with the chair and ranking member about the national nuclear security administration. mr. lujan: the program at the national securities administration national laboratories has over the past two decades made it possible or these labs to meet future needs via high risk, high-playoff needs. for example, in losall moss it ratories in my district, was the winner of the year's top award. at losall moss, ldrd supports about one-half of the post-docs who have become the lab's permanent employees and is one of the key and leading sources employees.
the bill were considering today would lower the amount to be not more than 4.5%. i'm concerned this level could harm the national lab's ability to meet future needs and i ask the chairman and ranking member to work with us in making sure the levels aloud for ldrd do not adversely impact the lab. i would yield to the gentlelady from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: we are facing a unique time in our history. projects financed by ldrd have nuclear safety security agency to rapidly respond to unforeseen national security needs. in 1988, sandia national labs in my district made a breakthrough in parallel computing that resulted in the ability to compute extremely
complicated numerical simulations to ensure the i have aity and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for nuclear tests. as a result we have not tested a nuclear weapon since 1993. the benefits of parallel processing supercomputers have also improved the competitiveness of u.s. industries and the global economy. they were used to map the human gee noem, develop new drugs and short then development time of products by finding mistakes before they end up in pro toe type. parallel processing supercomputers have also greatly increased our understanding of mat os -- of atmospheric chamings through global atmospheric circulation simulation. these have helped provide an understanding of the climate that cannot be determined by theories or other ex-perms. ldrd investments have been is his -- historically important in advancing the stakes of high performance computing. ongoing investments are enabling next generation
computer hardware and software approaches that will lead to much better performances. i'm confident we can work with the chairman and ranking member to fund ldrd at levels to maintain our vital national security assets. i yield back to the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, the chair. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate my colleagues from new mexico raising their concern for the long-term vitality of the national nuclear security administration's laboratories. i look forward to working with both of you to make sure that for laboratory direct research and development, ldrd program do not adversely affect the national security capability of these remarkable laboratories. ms. lujan grisham: i yield to the gentlelady from ohio, the ranking member. ms. kaptur: ldrd is an
important program for labs to recruit and retain the top talent needed to accomplish their mission. i join the chair in agreeing to work with our colleagues so that the national security capabilities of the labs are not adversely impacted by the levels aloud for ldrd. mr. lujan: i thank the chair and ranking member for their service and agreeing to work with us on this this issue and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from south dakota seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. noem of south dakota. at the ovene the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to issue rules or regulations to establish a fee for surplus water for missouri riverres. vare. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
mrs. noem: this amendment is simple. it would block the corps of engineers for issuing rules or regulations to charge a fee for surplus water on the missouri river. i offer this amendment to stop an overreach by the corps of engineers for charging people in north dakota, south dakota, and montana for what is legally theirs. the states of south an north dakota sacrificed hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farmland in the creeavings of the dams on the missouri but they did not give up the right to their own water from the river. the flood control act that created the dams and vezzer voirs specifically said it is -- and reservoirs specifically said it is not the policy of congress to limit the rights of states in determining the water sheds within their borders and like wise their rights and interests in water control. madam chair i don't believe congressional intent could be any clearer in this instance.
rural water systems, businesses, tribes up and down the missouri river rely on it for water. let us not forget that two careers ago at this time residents up and down the missouri were suffering one of the greatest floods the river has ever seen. many are still working to get back to the way things were to the extent that even going to be possible. now the corps brought forth this proposal that rilets long held historical and legal precedents to charge us for watter that belongs to us. i want to thank the chairman for being a leader on this bill we have on the floor today for the opportunity to talk about this amendment, it's so important to the people in south dakota, in north dakota, and montana and i urge my colleagues to stop the corps from overreaching and ask them to support my amendment. w that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition?
mr. cramer: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minute plsms cramer: i rise in support of this important amendment. one wouldn't think the congress of the united states should have to pass amendments on appropriations bills to ensure the constitution is upheld by the bureaucracy or that long held promises made by the federal government are kept. but that's exactly what this amendment does. not only will it ensure that the corps of engineers no longer engages in charging the states of north dakota, south dakota, montana, and its citizens and sovereign tribes along the missouri river for the water that's rightfully there but it also frees up the corps to engage in more productive activities that we have heard a lot about tonight. i'm proud to be a sponsor and proud to stand here and support this important amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to this amendment and i'm actually very familiar
with the effect of rising waters costs on community a community in my hometown in ohio. water costs will increase by 56.5% over the next five years with the average rate payer's bill increasing from $125 to $300 per year. such a large increase takes a significant toll on hard-pressed families, especially on seniors living on fixed incomes. it's being done in order to construct major water facility that our -- that are seriously out of date and in need of replacement but the amendment being offered here tonight must be viewed, i think, in terms of equity. currently the vast majority of local communities benefiting from water supplies from corps of engineers projects are harged fees for storage. they're working to review the current policy case by case in favor of a more consistent policy across the country. now, my community receives
nothing from the corps. in the way of water storage or capacity. but the region in question has already benefited from cost-free water storage over several years. and it would seem to be unfair to provide special treatment to one specific region or create an exception for one region from a nationwide policy. given the sharp fiscal constraints to agencies funded by this bill, this particularly difficult -- it's particularly difficult to justify such a localized subsidy because we have pressing needs across our country and not sufficient funds to meet all the water needs facing our nation. and i think these water needs are going to be very significant as time goes on because our population will double, well, it already has doubled since the last century, and triple by 2050, they expect 500 million people to be living in this country. the amount of water isn't going to change. t's a resource that just keeps replenishing but we have to
treat it because we have more people and it's going to cost more to do this. so i respectfully rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south dakota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have. it the amendment is agreed to. -- have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speier of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the amount otherwise made available by this act for department of energy -- ms. speier: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentlelady is recognizes -- recognized for five minutes. ms. speier: madam speaker,
thank you. let me ask a simple question. do we suddenly have extra money around? because i'm trying to figure out why we're so committed to wasting it. budget challenges are forcing us to re-examine our investments. adding $30 million beyond the president's request to support fossil fuel research is a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars. that are better used to invest in the future and paying off our deficit. we simply cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research, the private sector can do better and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits. our energy sector has some of the of the most promising ideas and technologies in the world. our energy policy, however, is horribly outdated. h.r. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by some 60% and adds additional money that the administration either want --
neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. at the same time it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel r&d. in fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country. more than $500 billion in 2011. and they often go to expensive projects with little upside. the fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. fossil fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest profits in the world, and they can shoulder than other r&d costs. -- their own r&d costs. this is a clear example of duplication. cuts to fossil fuel research are supported by the fiscal commission and the fiscal watchdog groups like taxpayers for common sense. these kind of cuts are necessary to get back on the right fiscal path and these are the kinds of cuts our constituents elected us to enact. this cut of research can and is and should be largely funded by
the private sector. since industry has market incentives to make new discoveries in this area. government spending should be focused on areas where there are emerging markets, where public funds are needed to support basic research. my amendment reduces our reliance on old energy. the amendment simply strikes $3 -- $30 million in r&d from fossil fuels and commits it to deficit reduction. what we've all been clamoring for. and maintains the president's requested level of funding for this research. our biggest innovators succeed because they are forward thinking. our energy policy needs to do the same. we need to stop funding the past at the expense of the future. it is the fiscally responsible thing to do and i ask that you support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i rise to oppose the amendment.
this amendment would cut funding which has already been cut this evening, today, for the fossil energy research and development program, on top of reductions that we also took of 16% in our bill before we brought our bill to the floor. we all know that american families and businesses are struggling to pay high gas prices. and this fossil energy research program holds the potential once and for all to prevent future high gas prices that substantially increase our energy security. to cut it further would be dangerous, counterproductive, so i strongly oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
ms. speier: i ask for a recorded vote, madam speaker. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i rise for the purpose of ngaging in a colloquy. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you. chairman, i would like to thank you and the committee for this piece of legislation that's before us today. throughout the entire bill, we can see efforts that will result in more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. additionally, it's encouraging to see that the emphasis on certain research accounts at the national laboratory
technology laboratory. it's clear that you understand the challenges that the fossil fuel industry faces in trying to meet the excessive regulations imposed by this administration. however, i am concerned that the $78 million cut from current funding in this amended legislation represents a 16% reduction in funds and will have dire consequences for managing grants and contracts to conduct the necessary research and development fossil - of fossil fuel energy. america needs -- america depends on fossil research. on fossil resources for over 80% of our energy needs. and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. as you know, funding for this research and development has led to horizontal gas drilling, reductions in acid rain and increases in power plant
efficiencies and carbon capture and utilization efforts, for enhanced oil recovery. i hope, mr. chairman, that you will continue to agree that in order for us to continue this vital research in fossil fuel energy, nettle needs to be properly funded and that you will work with us in an effort o try to restore the 16% reduction in the funding for this account. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: if the gentleman would yield to me? mr. mckinley: yes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank my colleague from west virginia for his continued leadership on fossil fuel research. he knows it firsthand, he's a strong advocate, he's a strong supporter of nettle, of which he speaks, which is an important center for a purpose. critical
as he knows well, fossil energy provides 82% of our nation's energy needs. and research into tapping these resources as efficiently and as cleanly as possible are vital to our energy security. i look forward to continuing to work with him and our other colleagues who have interest in fossil energy research through conference to ensure this vital rogram has adequate resources. mr. mckinley: madam chairman, and chairman, thank you, thank you for those comments. these research projects are in every state in the nation. and almost every congressional district throughout our country. every one of our colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory operating efficiently. putting us into the next generation of power. and use.
and efficiency. we've appreciated your leadership and commitment to this program. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, the amount otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for energy programs, fossil energy research and development, and increasing the amount made available for the corps of engineers civil flood control and coastal emergencies by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: thank you, madam chair. chairman frelinghuysen, thank you for the constructive conversation that we had
earlier today about this amendment. i regret that we weren't able to come to some solution to the problem that's meant to address, but i appreciate your time and your sensitivity to the needs of coastal communities. the amendment before us would increase the army corps of engineers' flood control and coastal emergencies account by $10 million. it would doo so by moving the same amount from the department of energy's fossil energy research and development account. the flood control and coastal emergencies account provides communities across the nation with the funds that are necessary to prepare for floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters. it also provides support for emergency operations, repairs and other activities in response to those disasters. currently the committee's requested that we support this account by only $28 million. my amendment would increase that amount by approximately 1/3. the fossil energy research and development account does what its name implies.
it conducts research pertaining to the extraction and processing and use of mineral substances. unlike the flood control and coastal emergencies account, this one will be funded at $450 million, almost $30 million above the president's request. my amendment would simply reduce this account by only 2%, while still allowing for a $20 million increase above the president's request for that account. we as a body have tried these -- the sequestration approach. we've axed the counts evenly cross the board but that's not an approach that our constituents favor. it's incumbent upon us to make rational choices at some point to prioritize funding for those items that are most important to our constituents and to america. madam chair, this is what a rational approach looks like. fossil fuels don't need a subsidy. oil is selling at over $100 a barrel. oil companies have more than enough profits to conduct their
own research. in contrast, there's no profit to be had for communities in disaster preparation. merely self-preservation. that re the efforts demand our time and our attention and demand taxpayer funds. the cost of recovering from natural disasterers are only increasing, irrational -- a rational approach to the problem is to put more effort in preparing for them and mitigating the results. i hope that this body will support not only my amendment but the flood control and account as well. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition?